Talk:Otherkin/Archive 9

Are these people for real?

Seriously, do these people really believe what they say about themselves?

"No seriously guys I've got a griffin's soul. :U" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.138.121 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

If we use this text, then the GFDL demands that authorship information be retained. Simplest way to do that IMO is to undelete the Draconity article to restore its history and redirect it wherever the material ends up. Bryan 07:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, this article doesn't go that hugely into scope. Why a specific kind of Otherkin? Why just dragons? If we add a lot of this information, cosmetically, won't it require we expand the article to also include the specific belief of every other subset of Otherkin? It's not just dragons. I vote for not including this information, chiefly. Much of it does not come from WP:RS anyway, and thus little can be salvaged and held useable. I believe it goes beyond the scope of the Otherkin article, and it will be a future headache to incorporate. I personally believe it merits maybe one sentence, if we can verify that Dragons ARE a subset of Otherkin, and thus have a cite for same. We could then add a Types of Otherkin section again, including types we can verify. BUT, am prepared to have my mind changed on this. In either case, I've deleted the "See Also" link to Draconity, a page that now redirects HERE. If said page ever exists again, we'll restore it. Raeft 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the reasons for the article are historical. People believing themselves to be dragons tended to go online looking for people sharing that specific belief, the only other term that has a large popular awareness is 'lycanthropy', and that's quite obviously not the right term for believing that you're a winged lizard. 'Draconity' is a term that evolved from the online dragon community, while 'Otherkin' evolved elsewhere, and 'therianthropy' was applied by people with a classical education in these things. As we can see from the discussion threads, 'otherkin' is a hotly-contested term, often because those who choose to apply it to themselves have associated beliefs that disagree with those identifying themselves as 'therian'. I believe that the encyclopedic approach to the problem is to report as fairly and accurately as possible on the underlying phenomenon, and treat the community politics separately. NickArgall 02:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social networking site, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of information. Please see what Wikipedia is not. If you think there is some "historically significant" aspect to this then there are plenty of free webspace providers where you can host it for those tending to "go online looking for people sharing that specific belief". NeoFreak 12:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In short, Wikipedia is determined to be just as limited as a paper encyclopedia, only free and easier to access. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that is an honest question and not a baiting one. Wikpedia strives to have all of the legitmacy and high standards of a paper encyclopeida with the benefits of using an open source, electronic medium of presentation and collaboration. NeoFreak 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It was not a question of any kind, meerly a statement of deduction based on observation. I am genuinely concerned for the future of Wikipedia, and currently I see it heading down a disasterously ruinous path, as do many others. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs reliable sources. Are there reliable sources on this subject? Not really. Is it notable? Otherkin are -barely- notable. They've been noted in articles before, but mostly peripherally. So its kind of hard to build an article on the subject. Honestly, this is a problem with a lot of fringe subjects which are recent and largely confined to the internet. Draconicity is the same, really - it is a fringe group with little acceptance. Also, I'm pretty sure your avatar is a copyvio. >> Titanium Dragon 06:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that but I don't agree with it, IMHO it's preventing Wikipedia from being the best it can be. I have nothing to say about the Draconity article that hasn't already been said, heads will be butted but not mine. My avatar is fair use. It is not used in any article and I do not claim to be the one who created it, and I gain nothing of monetary value from my use of it. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 07:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

NeoFreak, Raeft asked a question in a discussion page about why there was a page specifically about Draconity. I answered that question. I believe that it was an appropriate discussion for us to have on a talk page. Your comments would have been appropriate if I had been talking about the history of the Draconity article in an article. I wasn't. NickArgall 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to your assertion that the individual Draconity article was justified because "People believing themselves to be dragons tended to go online looking for people sharing that specific belief, the only other term that has a large popular awareness is 'lycanthropy'". Did I misinterperet what you were saying? NeoFreak 05:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I do think that some mention needs to be given. The beliefs of these two groups differ greatly in my opinion, if there is interest, I can point sources. However, I will not make any changes myself as where I stand is clearly not NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.189.252.225 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Sources would be great, just please make sure that they are reliable sources or they can't be used. This means no "community sites", forums, message boards, personal websites or "research" done by anyone other than an accredited source, academic or jounalistic. NeoFreak 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links redux

Are the current external links appropriate? Otherkin.net is not really that important; its a personal website. Same with many of the other external links. I don't think they're really appropriate. We decided they weren't reliable sources, so why are they even linked? The only one I could really see linking would be Baxil's FAQ, simply due to its linkings from so many otherkin sites, and even that's dubious. Titanium Dragon 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not try the House Kheperu otherkin articles? House Kheperu is technically a vampire house, but it does have good information on this broad subject. http://kheperu.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index&catid=&topic=21&allstories=1 Asa Hearts 00:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. The last thing I'm going to do in an effort to educate someone is send them to "House Kheperu" the emo-swag hangout for confused suburbanites that think they're vampires. The place is run by a woman named Bellanger that gatherd all the vampire mall folk-lore and bad pop culture references and then added in some pseudo-historical context and published a book. It's bad enough, that because it got published and people bought, it can be used as a "reference". We have more then enough external links already, as a matter of fact I think the section needs to be trimmed. NeoFreak 02:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how you see the house as emo, but that is beside the point. Even if what you speculate is true, Belanger's site is still far better than most of the links in the section. The section does,indeed need to be trimmed, but it is sites like otherkin.net that need to go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asa Hearts (talk • contribs) 04:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

It's technically a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that most of the people in that particular vampire house seem to share a lot in common with the emo kids of today, with regard to general attitudes and outlook on life (at least in stereotype). I have to say I'm in agreement with exclusion in this case, though I would like to see something similar in its place (perhaps a little more adult and a little less reactionary than the aforementioned site). Red Heron 00:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If Otherkin is classified as a subculture, why not include links to sites for those interested in the subculture? The best learning experience is from those who actually live their lives within the culture, not a bunch of pointless information derived from books who could or could not be credible. Just because it was published does not mean it is reliable information. That seems to be the main argument here. What is and what is not a valid source. What source is more valid than those who participate? You wouldn't ask a Buddhist to explain Christianity, so why ask psychologists to explain Otherkin? Clodaus 11:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't? If the Buddhist is knowledgeable on the topic, I would. Following a belief system does not automatically make a person a more reliable source on said belief system. --Scandalous 11:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's the other question I have: if the links are not considered reliable, then why allow any external links at all? These are as reliable as any of the other links I've seen in other articles on almost any subject, with far less argument. Red Heron 00:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Content Proposal - Can we work together?

Okay, I've been stopping in every once in a while for the past...I'd say around a year. It's been interesting seeing how it's evolved into nothing. It's been a constant war, and it's accomplished nothing thus far but a rather pathetic stub. Cute, but ineffective. How can we fix this?

The first question I want to ask everyone (that I'm sure will be argued) is how do you define accurate content? Content written by Otherkin themselves - deleted. Psychology content - deleted. Enthusiast content - deleted. From who do you want content? I understand you want referenced sources, but from whom? If we're able to come up with a list of valid citations, would content from Otherkin be acceptable?

My second argument, stemming from the first, is why do you so strongly refuse content from those who actually live their daily lives within this culture? Would it not make sense that they know the most about it? As a member of the otherkin community, I understand there will be opposing views. I expect that. It is because the Otherkin community is a massive hierarchy of races. Therefore I suggest that only the content general to all Otherkin be added, and the specifics left to other articles.

Psychology. Of course I have to bring this up. I have once above, but I want to sum everything up here. Let's take a look at the Christianity article. I am using this as a comparison because it is a belief system, and Otherkin can be considered one as well. Where is the input from psychologists? Umm...it's not there. Then why is it necessary to put it here? Wikipedia needs a consistent system. If they're going to add psychology content on one article relating to a belief system, they need to on all the articles. Am I wrong to state this? If you feel the need to enter the information, provide a small section, or a link for additional research for those interested. It is not needed here.

Another thing I've been wondering is this: what types of people have been editing this article? Well, by the looks of it, every opposing group possible. This isn't like a war article you can reach neutrality on. You need to have one side edit it, and that is it. I propose Otherkin. Let the culture itself inform the public what they believe, and what they stand for. You don't see Jesus telling people what Buddha stands for, do you? Outside groups should not inform the public on groups they do not belong to. This does not provide accurate information.

Clinical Lycanthropy; does that apply to Otherkin? I don't believe so. Most Otherkin believe that their consciousness/soul/whatever you wish to call it is Otherkin. They recognize that their physical body is human. Though some Otherkin may believe they can shapeshift, the majority I have spoken with do not. Many Otherkin believe that certain traits may manifest physically thought behavior, and some small physical effects, but that is as generally as far as it goes.

About the merge - I stated this above but I want to state it again. Theranthropy is included in Otherkin, but Otherkin is not theranthropy. Therans are a subgroup of this massive hierarchy. Not all Otherkin consider themselves to be some type of animal, I know I don't. Once again, here's a visual aid:

                        Otherkin
                      /     |    \
                    /       |      \
              Therans  Elementals  Angels
                /           |        \
             Wolves      Sylves     Seraphim 

So what is the goal of this article? This is something you guys really need to focus on. Is the goal to provide information on the culture? Is it to provide information on a mental disorder? Or is it a playground for arguments and tug-of-war?

I know I left a lot out I needed to say, but this is plenty to ponder. For those who read it all, thank you. Try to keep things organized in your responses - the goal of this is to be productive, not loose it with all the other content. Wikipedia is a fairly respected encyclopedia, so I would prefer that when people use it, they get accurate content. Otherkin has for so many years been misunderstood. I've been aiming to help define them and reduce the ridicule from outside communities. Wikipedia is just a small step in that direction, and I would like to see it work out.

Please take everything I have stated into consideration. I understand that many seek to disprove content rather then aid its development. I ask that you do not do so here. Who am I to propose all these changes? Well, no one. But I'm hoping it'll help. Someone's gotta do it.

Clodaus 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to understand some of what the policy is on information being included here. The problem seems to be that you don't know why that is and seek an exception to the rules for your "special area of interest". The answer to which is, of course, no. Please read up again on original research and the simple rule of attribution. NeoFreak 14:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually with another reading of your post it would seem you would also benefit from reading the policy on article ownership and wikipedia's rule on neutral point of view. The concept that christianity and "Otherkin" are equatable subjects when it comes to article writing is...unoriginally incorrect. That you think this article should only be written by Otherkin is not just shockingly naive but also insulting and indicative that you have no idea how wikipedia works. I've left some additional links on your talk page, please read them. NeoFreak 14:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that most of those links were addressed by my recognition that published sources need to be cited; however I will look into them in more detail. I do not intend on contributing any uncited information (I actually do not intent on contributing at all; my efforts would be fruitless). Also, I'm curious as to how this "belief" article is different than a Christian article, with the exception of, of course, the fact we have a fairly undeveloped stub with limited citations. If I understood this, perhaps then I will agree with you in saying my proposal that Otherkin develop article content is unmerited. I recognize that for Christianity, there are a great deal of published sources and historical documents that can support the religion no matter who writes the article. However with Otherkin, that is not the case. I suppose your argument will be, once again, original research. Okay, then how about everyone here works on coming up with a list of resources before content? I also noticed that one of the resources is an article written on a website. How is this exempt from Wikipedia's policy of Original Research? Clodaus 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

One of two things is happening here: Either you're not reading the links provided in which case I'd ask you again to please do. The only other possible explanation is you just don't get it, in which case I don't know what else to say to you. I'm not going to waste my time if you won't put forth the effort to understand the policies of wikipedia or lack the faculty to decipher them. NeoFreak 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to read of the majority of those links, and scan the rest. I do not have the time at the moment to read over every sentence, especially considering I am not contributing to the article itself. It may have answered my question about the reference, buy not the comparison. If you do not wish to answer it, fine, someone else can. However, I do not appreciate the insult or aggressive attitude (however slight) considering my continued polite conversation. But thank you for taking the time to provide me with such links. Clodaus 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

NeoFreak, your arguments lack neutrality and yet you harp on the NPOV. You're the one wasting OUR time in this case, dude! Not only have I failed to see every argument in favor of the subject matter within this topic being NPOV, I have had to stop arguing because it's pointless to try to be reasonable with people who are being flatly unreasonable for the sake of their own comfort. There can be no consensus if there is no compromise made, just as there can be no freedom of speech if unpopular sentiments are not afforded the same protections that popular ones are afforded. Thus, a black Jew would be defending his own right to speak by representing a neo-Nazi's right to speak (note that this does NOT connote agreement to the sentiments, merely the right to express them). Though this is not a democratic process (and I sorely wish it was at times, while being glad it's not at other times), the same principles apply: if you want something to hold true in all cases, it must be both fair and logical. The argument that a broader topic should be included in a narrower topic is illogical, and has little or nothing to do with NPOV or OR. It's merely an attempt to remove the topic. Red Heron 00:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

NeoFreak's argument appear to be following the rules of neutrality as far as I can tell. Sorry to ruin your rant, but your comments here border on violating WP:NPA and certainly show a lack of understanding of WP:NPOV. DreamGuy 00:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Slow, purposeful elimination

Just out of curiosity. The article on wikipedia regarding otherkin (and other beliefs such as this) used to be fairly long and informitave, while giving all sides of the situation. Explaining what people believed and at the same time leaving the possibility open of a psychological condition (heck, the same thing could be said about any belief :) ). However, over time, articles have been merged repeatedly, until (using otherkin as a specific example) we are left with a single article. There used to be many different 'subtype' articles about otherkin (draconity is one that can be seen on this talk page), but repeatedly they have been deemed non-notable for their own article, and they should be included in the body of another article, so they are removed. Then, the article that they have been moved to is slowly picked apart for various reasons, not meeting guidlines to the perfect definition of how each person sees them, until all that's left is a 'stub', that doesn't mention the articles that were deleted to be incorperated in the first place. In all of the informations place is basically a dictionary definition, with no additional information because people cannot agree to disagree, and thus nothing can be posted because someone is always unhappy and so the guidelines of wikipedia are called in repeatedly so that the article is effectively put to a standstill.

It's not specifically this article that bothers me, it's a pattern i've seen going on as Wikipedia continues. It is an excellent source with great potential, but if this sort of nature gets the better of the community (as it seems to be) more and more will be deemed non-noteworthy of inclusion in this 'prestigious encyclopedia', and wikipedia will loose one of the things it is most noted for. The ability to quickly and easily find information that is not easy to find anywhere else. Specifically because it IS fringe. I was going to write a bit more, however, this will most likely be removed because someone will feel it's improperly places here..

This is not meant to be inflammatory, insulting, or anything else. I enjoy wikipedia, and have found many usefully things on it. This is a trend that bothers me, and that is the only reason I bring it up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.189.252.225 (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

The reason is, quite simply put, that there is a dearth of reliable sources on the subject. Random person X is not an RS, and mention of otherkin is few and far between in any sort of reliable source. Indeed, few books have been written which even mention them. As such, it is quite difficult to keep an article like this with any real length, because quite simply put we don't have any sources to use for it. Numbers and the like are unknown. Titanium Dragon 15:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand.. I wasn't specifically speaking about this article in particular, though it is an example of what I meant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.189.252.225 (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

It is rather cyclic, really. Generally what happens is a bunch of articles are made, then someone is like "These aren't notable" or "These aren't sourced" and starts a bunch of AFDs. The less notable articles are weeded out and deleted, while the more notable ones are kept. This particular article is, I feel, notable, but RSs on the subject seem to be almost nonexistant, so it is basically on the edge of existing. Someone needs to either find more RSs or add more information from the ones we have, and I have looked but been unable to find more RSs. And while yes, Wikipedia does contain a lot of random stuff, its important that it is notable enough to keep. Titanium Dragon 10:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the topic should be this article.. instead of discussing the broader issue, how about a suggestion about this article specifically. What about a personal Essay that is not necessarily NPOV hosted on wikimedia then? If the article itself (because of RSes) can't be much longer, why not at least provide an alternate source in that form.

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not for that sort of thing; that's what personal websites are for. There are numerous free web servers out there if you want to do that; Wikipedia is for sourced, NPOV articles. Titanium Dragon 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, what my original idea was saying was the principle of not being a paper dictionary. I wasn't talking about posting it on wikipedia directly, I think you misunderstood me. Anyways, I may contribute to the community (and obviously, register :P) in the near future. I however would not work on this article, as I understand what you mean.

Anyone can publish anything that has mass-market appeal (Michael Moore proved that). What makes publishing on any metaphysical subject RS or not? I think this is the main point that's being missed here. The topic itself is a fairly recent social change, and merely AFDing it to death simply means that everyone loses. Red Heron 00:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to review the policies and guidlines on reliable sources and neologisms. Also, review archived and even present discussions will answer alot of your questions. NeoFreak 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explane to me why Otherkin.net isn't a RS?--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

a thought

this article doenst deserve to die as a mere stub, so i went around and read the ENTIRE history of the article and salvaged what i could. feel free to do the sameKaraveks voice 04:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent Massive Edits By Karaveks voice

I'm sorry, it looks like a lot of work went into this, but looking over them, it almost entirely seems to cite what would, in any other context, be desced as 'fan sites', it ignores a number of consensus points that had been reached on the talk page, they removed a number of wiki-things, including the call for citation and the suggestion for the merge (which I am against, but I wouldn't have just deleted at this point; I have readded them). It also destroys the NPOV that both otherkin and other editors have tried to achieve on this page.

Frankly, it runs so roughly over everything all the other editors have been striving for, and there are so many issues with it, that I really think a complete reversion to before the edits were made needs to be done. -Thespian 08:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

To be clear:

Otherkin.net is not a RS. The following in our list of links are RSs:

• • Elven Like Me, from Village Voice
  • Most of the books, save the ones by the Silver Elves.
  • The pub med paper
  • The Wooster.edu link
  • The kuro5hin link.

That’s it.

Unfortunately, I have access to exactly 0 of these books, though I might be able to find them at a library. If anyone DOES have access to these books they might be able to reference a lot of this article, but unfortunately other than the Wooster.edu link we have virtually no RSs on the actual subject of otherkin in general, though we have some on the elven community. Aside from the online content, I have nothing in the way of RSs. And to be honest, I'm not even certain how good of sources most of those books are, though some seem to be published by reputable publishers, at least. Please read over the talk page. Otherkin.net simply isn't a RS, and all but a handful of the citations are from otherkin.net. Titanium Dragon 09:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

otherkin dot net is as closeto a c scholarly web site as anythinfg can be dfound onb this topic , in my opinion. , aside from that, its sorta s spirituality thing, so its hard to be encyclopedic in the first place. ive read the old talk pages, andi t seems that some of this was taken from otherkin boards, which , since its spirtuality based, seems a good a place as any to begin. ive run accropss some dragonkin sites that looked good enough, but our not gonna find anything from like yale on this. its not old enough.Karaveks voice 11:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There are RSs on the subject, namely the aforementioned books and a few articles. Otherkin.net, conversely, is not a RS; its some random person's webpage. Saying "its the best we'll get" is unacceptable; if there are no reliable sources, then it shouldn't have an article at all. However, there ARE RSs, just not a huge number, and we need to use them. Using RSs is one of the most important principles of Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

as i recall there were entries with massive citations, so why dont we, you and i, look for it in the history? ill try if you will.Karaveks voice 01:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there weren't. Almost the whole article was sourced from otherkin.net, which was the reason almost the entire article got removed the first time and the article almost got deleted. If you look back through the talk archives, you'll see discussion on the subject and that was the problem. Titanium Dragon 02:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

i still dont see why optherkin dot net is a bad source... i mean ther artent any univeristy profesosrs talking about this ubject witout laughing,....Karaveks voice 02:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Otherkin.net is not a "bad" source. It simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability and therefor is not appropriate. However, I have noticed there is a new book on Otherkin out that would probably be worth reading to see if it could be cited to improve this article. Aine 04:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user

Karaveks_voice (talk · contribs) has been identified as a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user (specifically Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs), who some of you may be familiar with) and blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In light of this, the consensus above, and this block, I have RVed as per my comments above. There may be some additions that might be worth looking into; I encourage anyone to feel free to read the edits over and see if there's stuff in there that might be usable. Thanks. -Thespian 05:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest revert

The wording of the article prior to the IP's change is accurate and reflective of the reliable sourced produced from medical professionals. Because it is not falttering to some people's view on the subject it is still backed by good attribution to relaible sources. The more ambiguous wording being pushed is not just now different from the sources provided it is wrong. Also on the usage of the word "fae" instead of "fairy": fairy is the more recognized and understood term and should be the term used, it is even the title of the linked article, not fae. NeoFreak 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

the word fairy, is oftentimes confused with a rather mean way to say homosexual, thus i thought it good tochange. I also got rid of the angel and demon reference, because i have yet to see a christain otherkin who takes themselves seriosuly, or isnt on one of the boards trying to get converts for christainity.

The linked article is titled fairy and that is the term used there. One isn't going to insist on using "the developed ovary of a seed plant" instead of "fruit" because some use it as a slang term for a homosexual. As for the rest, if you want to change something then it must be backed with attribution. Because you've experianced it to be something is not enough, that is considered original research and it is not allowed. If you wish to change anything on this article you must first verify it with relaible sources. Please don't make me ask you again. I suggest you take the time to go over the policies and guidline links that I have left on you talk page before making anymore edits. Also, it would help if you registered an account. The links to do so and details on why and how are also on your talk page. NeoFreak 13:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

according to the page about reliabel sources, and the criteria therein, there really arent any reliable pro otherkin sources out htere, except the book that i have no access to. doesnt seem fair... but you can at leat se my point about not saying angels or demons on this page as a valid thought, even if its not verifiable? also are you going to read the book and heavily re write the article to include more information about the other half of the debate as well as the mental health people?

why was Clodaus 's point about this article being on equal footing with christinaity shot down? it looks like it could be, they are both beleif systems, one is just more widespread... i mean theres nothing inthe article about the paranoid schitsophreanics who " talk to god" and thees nothing in ther about how some people think its justa big cult... is it because people are afraid of offending christians?

I'm actually considering buying the book, yes. I kind of feel like I "owe" it to the people that have wanted this article expanded and haven't been able to do so. No, I don't take your point on the Angels and Demons, the source provides it and from what I've seen (not that it really matters) alot of people do have that...oreintation. As far as the Chirstian issue if you look around you'll find a Criticism of Christianity article. I'm not so sure you want to go that route. Christianity also has about 2,000 years of social, cultural, anthropological and histrorical sources and figures to draw upon. I think you'll find that as times goes on more sources will emerge for the Otherkin article as well. When/if I get that book you can expect the article to expand quite a bit. NeoFreak 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

When I'm home for the summer I'll go through the public library and see if we've got anything. Titanium Dragon 22:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, I just edited this article tobetter reflect reality. Otherkin beliefs are not "sometimes met with controversy" but rather "always met with laughter". Your homework for tonight is to ask somebody with no association with anything otherkin what they think about the general idea of otherkin. Their response will be validation enough for me...

Request for Mediation: Verifiability

That's right, it's proceeded to the point where I want some mediation. Before the request is made, however, I'd like to hear those interested in weighing in, and votes either for or against mediation in this matter. There are more than enough resources for the article to proceed, and the near-blatant persecution of this topic (from a four-page, well-structured, reasonable representation of the many and varied Otherkin beliefs to a single paragraph... tantamount to the description of the Earth being reduced from a chapter-long description of flora and fauna to mostly harmless in the Douglas Adams works). The truth of this matter is that I think the neutrality on the part of the naysayers is called into question. I would like to petition for both of the alerts at the top of the main article be removed, and I'm prepared for it to go to mediation at this point. In fact, that's about the only way I can see this possibly being resolved. We are going to have to resort to mediating every single minute change because someone doesn't like the topic (and that's about as far as I'm going to go on that line of thought, since I don't wish to offend any staffers). I will gladly post a request for mediation at the end of September if it is by and large necessary. Red Heron 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguments in favor of mediation

• Argumentative and confrontational (rather than well-structured) debate on both sides. Red Heron 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Fallacious arguments accepted without a whit of dispute. Both sides are guilty of this. Red Heron 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because you label something you don't want to believe as fallacious doesn't make it so. DreamGuy 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Failure to accept any level of verifiability. Reasonable consensus cannot be reached when either side is being unreasonable. Red Heron 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? Something that isn't a random website? Titanium Dragon 10:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Requests to merge a broader topic into a narrower topic (Otherkin, which encompasses therianthropy, into therianthropy, which does not encompass Otherkin). Red Heron 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Otherkin are arguably nothing more than a footnote, and that would be the proper article for them to be mentioned in, if they should indeed be mentioned. Titanium Dragon 10:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Inability to allow for differences of opinion in order to create consensus. This is tantamount to religious persecution, and should be reflected in all articles of a religious, spiritual, metaphysical, or similar intangible nature. Red Heron 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion is not a RS, and something as fringe as this (a couple thousand practicing otherkin, at most) - the reason people object to this article, seriously object, is that it may well not be notable, and the dearth of RSs strongly supports this. Titanium Dragon 10:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with RedHeron's arguments, this comment is specifically directed at Titanium Dragon: "practicing otherkin"? Can you please explain why you felt those two words belonged together? ---- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 03:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We already HAVE consensus. Wanting to ignore it for POV-pushing reasons is simply unacceptable. DreamGuy 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguments against mediation

• The article should be put up for a vote for deletion, and only if it survives should mediation be entered. Titanium Dragon 10:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Echoing Titanium Dragon, there is nothing here to mediate. Every reliable source that has been found has been incorporated. Everything that is not has been removed. This is in comliance with policy. Any mediation will have me listed as an "involved party" and I will refuse mediation which makes it dead in the water. If you so wish you might choose to persue a Request for Comment instead. NeoFreak 19:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• One editor who is either unfamiliar with or ignoring policy and some sockpuppets of a permanently banned POV-pushing user versus a clear consensus of longterm responsible editors does not a cause for mediation make. DreamGuy 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution

One obvious solution I can see is the creation of a Metaphysical/Religious tag that permits a less-restricted NPOV in order to permit all sides of a debate to weigh in (thus permitting comparisons of, for example, Catholicism and Protestantism on the same page). This would lead to consensus by permitting opposing viewpoints to be represented within the article, maintaining academic neutrality and changing the argument in this (and a few other) cases from "Should this article even exist" to "Who should we list first in the debate". Red Heron 00:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC) (Please list other proposals in this subsection, if any, and indent your rebuttals, etc..)

NO. First off, you obviously don't understand the NPOV policy; there's no such thing as a "less-restricted NPOV". Something is either NPOV, or it is not NPOV; something is either reliably sourced or it is not. The horrible, horrible flaw in your argument is that we DON'T have more than enough sources; we have a list of references which are extremely sketchy. The problem is primarily that otherkin are not a highly visible group, and thus have nothing useful written on them. We've got a few very old articles which are highly sketchy, and some books which purportedly contain some information, but given what they are, may well not qualify as RSs. The problem is there is no central otherkin authority and no peer-reviewed papers on it; the college course website which mentioned otherkin has been removed (the page itself was altered with the new year's curriculum which doesn't even mention otherkin, probably indicating they are too obscure, even for a class like that). The long article had very little verifiable information and drew far too heavily on otherkin.net; virtually the entire article was sourced from a website which belongs to a random person who believes they have multiple personalities and they are of different species! Hardly a reliable source on the subject, and it fails RS horribly as this isn't a page about otherkin.net (not that otherkin.net is notable enough to merit an article, either).

We have exactly enough sourcing at the moment to have a one paragraph article, and this has come up for a VFD, wherein I pushed to keep the article but no one at all has stepped forward with a new RS; I'd vote to keep again on the basis of it being notable enough, but the article is no more than a stub. This indicates to me we may well have the majority of sources which actually mention otherkin on this page.

Unless someone can actually get their hands on a published RS, this article is essentially screwed, and the books that have been listed are obscure and not necessarily even good sources. The reality is that there aren't really meaningfully opposing viewpoints on otherkin, as the opposing viewpoint can be summed up in a single sentence that consists of "Many people consider otherkin to be mentally ill or seeking attention, and some have suggested it is related to clinical lycanthropy". This is because otherkin are on the verge of not being notable at all. Titanium Dragon 10:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I concur with Titanium Dragon. There is no varying degree of NPOV based on subject matter, it just is or it just isn't. Because this article does not reflect the personal beliefs or experiances of an editor in its entierty does not make the article POV. I have found no reliable source that states Otherkin is a religion. Also, the accusations of religious persecution are over the top and inflammatory. This is an encyclopedia, not a community forum for the advertisment of original research unverified statements or soapboxing. If you wish to add to this article then find a reliable source to cite and add the information. If the sources don't exist for what you wish to add then it doesn't get added, end of story. The article as it stands now is verified by reliable sources, factual and encyclopedic. There is no "solution" to be reached because there is nothing wrong with it (except for the argument that the subject itself is not even notable). As a side note I am going to buy the new Otherkin Field Guide because I feel like I owe it to the interested readers of the article. I hope that it will prove to be a reliable source and we can use t to expand the article. NeoFreak 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"less-restricted NPOV" is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN as it's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, which has been described by the Wikipedia founder as the most important foundation of this entire project. DreamGuy 20:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Firstly, I have to admit, I have no clue how to do Wikipedia stuff. This is just where I figured I could give some info that could help. There's an otherkin book Just published recently called A Field Guide to Otherkin, by Lupa. It is a published book specifically detailing the types of otherkin and stuff. The first 30 pages can be previewed here: http://www.thegreenwolf.com/preview.pdf So now, you have a referenceable book to draw from.

Also, if it helps, it's specified in that book that therianthropy is an aspect of otherkin, most certainly not the other way around. Not sure where THAT idea came from... but now that there's a referencable book clarifying that Otherkin is most certainly NOT a part of therianthropy, but therianthropy is Specifically illustrated as part of Otherkin, this merger discussion should be completely discarded.

Ruby 12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Ruby

Alright, I have to say this… the field guide to otherkin looks incredibly sketchy. The fact that websites are on the inside for each of the people involved, on like the fourth page; the fact that these people are kind of random otherkin people (I’ve actually heard of them before), but they aren’t really recognized by anyone as authorities (they are, as I said before, random internet people – I could write something as well as they, and given this (kind of sketchy looking, from their website) printing company printed such, I kind of regret not writing such a thing)… I’m not sure if they are a real authority on the subject matter.

As per the RS guidelines: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Is “A field guide to otherkin” a reliable source? Given the publisher and the lack of any sort of credentials by the author, I’m going to have to say that it isn’t very reliable at all. Lupa and that publishing company do not have a reputation for being accurate or checking their facts (they publish books on how to do actual magic and on alchemy, sketchy enough on their own). As this page is not about the book itself but about otherkin in general, it isn’t a really good source. This is the problem I referenced earlier; there AREN’T many reliable sources on it because it is very fringe, and it flirts with being non-notable. The only reason I don’t support just deleting the article is because I think it is notable (people do know about their existance, at least online) and because I think that Wikipedia should at least make it so it is possible to learn what it is in some manner. I think it is a small religious movement which is marginally notable, in the same sense as some college professors – most people haven’t heard about them, but they are notable enough to merit articles.

It doesn’t help that the reviews for her books are from other authors who publish via the same company, and are the authors of such luminous works as The Four Powers, Path of Fire: A Reconstructionist Guide to Ogam, and a random guy running a site I’ve never heard of (and I know a number of Wiccans). Lupa’s other books include a book with a chapter on animal sacrifice, Kink Magick: Sex Beyond Vanilla, and Magick on the Edge: An Anthology of Experimental Occultism. All published via the same publisher. It also doesn’t help that, in the disclaimer at the beginning of the book, it states that it deviates significantly from standard psychology and philosophy. Oh, and this little gem: “Finally, let me say it now: I am NOT the ultimate authority on Otherkin. This book is written through the filter of my own experiences, and while I’ve worked to maintain a balanced view of the topic, to include a variety of ideas that may be seen as unorthodox, it is not the do-all and end-all of the topic. Realize that not all Otherkin will agree with this material, and that I am no more or less right than anyone else.” Reliable source? Uh, no.

One nice thing, though, is that it did point to a certain Orion, who maintains a theranithrope booklist, which contains some books which are actually reputable:

• Cohen, Daniel. Werewolves. New York: Cobblestone Books, 1996. Only has 7 pages on it, and talks about the people on alt.horror.werewolves who, back in 1996, believed they were actual werewolves. This could actually be a good source; unlike the others, he's a fairly well-known author who has a number of books published by reputable companies and is or was a member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and even has a Wikipedia article.
• Polson, Willow. The Viel’s Edge: Exploring the Boundaries of Magic. New York: Citadel Press, 2003. Not sure how reputable she is, but Citadel Press is a reputable publisher, so might be worth a look-see to see if it is usable.
• Wicker, Christine. Not in Kansas anymore: a curious tale of how magic is transforming America. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005. May or may not be reputable; again, I don’t know. HarperSanFrancisco is a reputable publisher, though.

I think these look like places to at least look. The Field Guide to Otherkin is not an RS though. Titanium Dragon 11:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Another point, actually. I, as an otherkin, am offended by the inclusion of clinical lycanthropy as part of this article. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. If you click the clinical lycanthropy link in the article itself, you see that it's referring to thinking you're PHYSICALLY other than human, namely a wolf. Otherkin is a SPIRITUAL belief, thinking that your spirit is either currently non-human, or has non-human origins. I do have references for that, but I have no clue how to do links and stuff in edits, so I can't add it myself yet, grr. Detailing what lycanthropy is is easily found on Wikipedia itself, and detailing what otherkin is is easily found in that book I mentioned earlier, the A Field Guide to Otherkin book. As soon as I, or someone else, can successfully take that offensive, NON-NEUTRAL garbage about lycanthropy out, the article will be much improved.

If someone cares to contest this, consider this point: Christianity includes the belief that followers are "Sons and Daughters of God," entitled to certain priviledges thereof. The belief that you are something special and important, with no actual basis for it, is referred to as a delusion of grandeur, a common symptom of schitzophrenia. To say that there's a connection between Christianity and schitzophrenia is MORE VALID than saying there's a connection between Otherkin and clinical lycanthropy.

Ruby 13:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I, as an atheist, see all religious views as rather nutty, otherkin included, but not as any more nutty than most religious views. As for doing links, I'd advise looking through the basic Wikipedia stuff. To help you out, though, single brackets are external links, double brackets are internal links, and if you want a link to say something other than the name of what it is linking to, look at this post; you use a | as a seperator. If you could find a good RS to link religiousity to schitzophrenia, you could potentially add it to such articles where it would be relevant (and I'd support it, though I doubt those who subscribe to religion would). The clinical lycanthropy thing is better sourced than the entire rest of the article combined, citing a published, peer-reviewed scientific article; being offensive is not a reason to remove it, as we do not censor ourselves for anyone. Titanium Dragon 11:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand your previous comment. You are under the mistaken assumption that Otherkin is a religion of some kind. It's not. A religion is a (seemingly) coherent collection of several different beliefs (it is more complicated than that but this is the only point relevant to this discussion) whereas Otherkin is only one single belief (that one is, somehow, someway, not human). ---- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 03:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ruby wrote: "I, as an otherkin, am offended by the inclusion of clinical lycanthropy as part of this article." You have the right to be offended if you really do have some emotional reaction to the fact that another article on an extremely similar theme is listed as one people might be interested in reading. You do not, however, have the right to insist that the rest of the world -- or, more importantly, Wikipedia, as it follows a policy not to kowtow to people being offended -- do whatever you want just because you are offended.

You also said "If you click the clinical lycanthropy link in the article itself, you see that it's referring to thinking you're PHYSICALLY other than human, namely a wolf." -- this is just false two different ways. Clinical lycanthropy ALSO covers those who don't think there's a physical change (and if some POV-pushing otherkin changed it again so it reads differently I'll change it back, because I've been studying lycanthropy since back before the werewolf wannabes thoght up that schtick. Second, many otherkin DO think they PHYSICALLY change or are physically different. This has been demonstrated time and time again, but some otherkin like to pretend otherwise, or say that they aren't real otherkin, etc., just to try to make themselves as a group feel better. It's like the Baptists saying that the Lutherans (or whatever) aren't REAL Christians and expecting the Christianity article to only cover their own favored system.

And if you think people here are editing based upon religious bias, you are sadly mistaken. The kinds of things you are offended by here are because you are easily offended, not because you have any right to be. On other article we run into the same problem with people of other belief systems, such as when we describe the narrative stories of Christianity as myths and some of the touchy people there freak out because they do not understand the meaning of the word. Wikipedia does not self-censor based upon people being offended over silliness.

You say you will get the sections you dislike removed from the article. No, no you won't. That's called POV-pushing, and that's expressly prohibited. We've already had to permanently ban other users for such actions, including one on this very page demanding the very same link be removed despite all the other editors agreeing it should stay. Bottom line here is you are not here to make an encyclopedia, you are here to try to force your opinion onto the encyclopedia. You won't get any farther than the last people who tried. DreamGuy 19:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point of what I said entirely. The POINT of that is that it's as valid (or more valid) to say that Christianity is related to Schitzophrenia as it is to say that otherkin is related to lycanthropy. Yes, some Christians have mental disorders, like schitzophrenia. This does NOT, however, mean that All Christians are schitzophrenic. By the same token, yes, some (perhaps many, or even most) Otherkin have mental disorders, potentially including lycanthropy. However, not all do, and it's neither fair nor reasonable to make such a suggestion. It is a SPIRITUAL belief, NOT a psychological disorder. Again, there may be certain individuals who possess both this belief and a disorder, but it's not appropriate to say that it's automatically that case. Merely by having the link included makes the presumption that lycanthropy and otherkin have something to do with each other. THAT is what offended me. I'm not offended by people thinking I'm insane... I get that a lot. I AM, however, offended by a website that's supposed to present a NEUTRAL point of view making the implication that this belief is related to a psychological disorder.

As far as reliable sources... what the heck do you want, exactly? Otherkin is a spiritual belief, primarily existing ONLINE. Thus, the vast majority of information exists online. So, fine, you don't want that. FINALLY a book comes out Specifically about otherkin, based on surveys and the like, to present the views of the community. And suddenly, it's not acceptable. However, you have a link to the Wooster website, which I read. The fact that it doesn't mention otherkin anymore... whatever. Point is, it's presenting the Original Point of View from the author... a teacher... as he's teaching his class on critical thinking. It says so right at the beginning of the page, saying that his words vastly represent his personal point of view about how all non-standard things: Telepathy, UFOs, Crop circles, etc etc etc, are complete nonsense. He fully admits his bias. And yet, that is more valid than a book specifically detailing otherkin?

Aside from a dictionary coming out, or encyclopedia britanica (or however you spell it) specifically detailing Otherkin, what exactly do you have in mind for a RS reference? How.. exactly... is the Wooster site (again, a personal opinion of a highly skeptical teacher) more valid than a book specifically detailing otherkin? And why exactly are other books, such as on animal magick and alchemy, making this author less valid? She's new age. She conforms to lots of new age and paganist beliefs. It's not reasonable to say that because her beliefs regarding magicks are different than yours, that makes her PUBLISHED WORKS less valid than say a teacher's ADMITTEDLY BIASED website for assisting students, just because his beliefs conform to yours.

You want a skeptical website or book to accept and proclaim otherkin points of view before you are willing to accept them as VALID FOR SUBMISSION on wikipedia? Ha! Funny, that. Not exactly NEUTRAL, is it?

My offense is not because you think I, and other otherkin, are insane. I'm used to that. My offense is how you cut down the entire basis of the otherkin belief, declaring yourself all high and mighty NEUTRAL **cough, cough** and yet, declaring any belief contrary to yours, or written from a point of view contrary to yours, to be automatically discarded as being not valid.

Also, an extra point, it's generally accepted in psychology that something is only classifiable as a disorder if it makes the person unfunctional in society. I know this from my psychology classes, I'll get references at some point. Just a note. To be otherkin does not mean one is not functional within society, it's a spiritual belief. To be a clinical lycanthrope, the psychological disease specifically, does mean one is non-functionable in society.

Ruby 22:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear at this point that you don't seem to get what's really going on here. You're choosing to believe that making an encyclopedia meet certain standards of reliability and neutral facts somehow is a massive attack on you and your beliefs. It seems like you are admitting that there are no good sources to back up your point of view and that therefore we should just accept bad ones so your opinion gets expressed in the article. Wikipedia is not a soap box nor a place for personal validation. This is not the Ruby Otherkin blog. This is an encyclopedia. DreamGuy 07:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Maybe my post was too long and you completely failed to read it.

I have no problem with wikipedia being neutral. In fact, I want it to be such. I don't find a neutral point of view to be an attack on my beliefs. I find the non-neutral point of view expressed in the current article and a number of editors here to be an attack on my beliefs. And I do feel there is an excellent source of info on otherkin... A Field Guide to Otherkin. Let me summarize my points really fast for you here:

1. 1. Wooster.edu site VS A Field guide to Otherkin.

Currently, the wooster.edu site is accepted. I ask: how is this not OR? How is this neutral? What the site is is a teacher, teaching a class on critical thinking, presenting his PERSONAL ADMITTEDLY BIASED VIEWS on what he terms "Nonsense" including all religion (he attacks Christianity, too), any paranormal beliefs (UFOs, ghosts, telepathy) etc. It's not a published work, it's updated once a week during the semester, then erased and restarted the next semester. The fact presented happens to be true... otherkin are often met with controversy... so I'm not fussing that it's in there. I'm fussing about it not being a good source.

A Field Guide to Otherkin is a book published by a reputable publishing company. Not self published. Yes, she does have other books on similar, paganistic topics, like animal magick and alchemy. Because she believes these things does not mean that she's incapable of writing a book. She's not the end-all know-all about otherkin, no. She's presenting the RESULTS OF HER RESEARCH AND SURVEYS. That is a valid secondary source, which Wikipedia says is ok.

My question is, why is the Wooster.edu site accepted and not the A Field Guide to Otherkin? One seems to be clearly violating the OR rules, since it's a personal opinion of a teacher, and one seems to be an excellent resource, since it's a published book of findings of research of the otherkin community.

I'll leave my second question about clinical lycanthropy for later

Ruby 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this question is NOT rhetorical. Why is the Wooster.edu reference more valid than a published book, namely, A Field Guide to Otherkin?

Ruby 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I agree with you that this page is biased, and as you can see from some of my previous comments (such as commenting that no otherkin ever seem to discover that their inner animal is a boll weevil), I'm not exactly the most pro-person you're going to find around here (the bag sitting next to me has a button that reads, "I'm otherkin, too! I'm half-foot-up-your-ass."). In point, I'm not terribly anti-otherkin (I dated someone who has inner tiger issues...and is also in the marine corps, and he's very pleasant and rational), but some of you are, as you no doubt know, complete freaking loons, and I go to cons and meet a lot of them. That said, for a while now, I have felt that this page is taken to the extreme, and just as biased as if we let the loonier otherkin ride it for a while; if you are passionate about this subject, REGARDLESS of whether you're in favour if it or against it, you are not a good editor for this page (that's a general 'you' btw, not a specific *you*, Ruby).

Second, the problem with the book you mention is in the Immanian desc of it: "A Field Guide to Otherkin is designed to inform both Otherkin and non-Otherkin about the community and the people and beliefs that create it. Rather than being a collection of statistics, it is a look into the lives of Otherkin, qualitative rather than quantitative." What Wikipedia *wants* is quantitative. Observations by neutral people are fine, but anyone who goes by the name Lupa, who identifies as otherkin, etc., is unlikely to write a book that isn't agenda-ridden. This isn't to say it can't be used for reference, but the referencing has to be *very* careful, and it also needs to be clear that this is a book written by a community member in a non-scientific fashion, with all the biases and chances that things were left out when they didn't quite line up (unlike a juried or judged work). Immanion is not self-publishing, but it is more than a little quirky, since its essentially 'What Storm Constantine likes'. --Thespian 23:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, couldn't edit anyway, don't know how ^-^ But I may be an excellent person on this page, because i'm just as passionately for Otherkin AND neutrality as some of these editors are against it. I'm not saying that we should put on the site, "Otherkin are humans who ARE other than human in spirit," I'm saying we have it say, "Otherkin are humans who BELIEVE that they are other than human in spirit," essentially. I'm not saying I'm right (as far as wikipedia goes, anyway) I'm saying that this page should illustrate what Otherkin IS: which is, a belief system. I'm not seeing how a person who believes she is Otherkin (Lupa) is not a valid source for illustrating the beliefs of Otherkin. No, the book isn't full of statistics, but it is full of research-based data. She took tons of surveys, analyzed them, and presented them. Yes, it's showing the opinions and beliefs of otherkin, but isn't that what Wikipedia should present? What are Otherkin, if not opinions and beliefs?

As far as otherkin being loons... quite honestly, I must agree. The majority of Otherkin I've encountered have struck me as clinically insane. Why? I think that people with psychological disorders, who want to believe they're right, will adopt some belief system that validates them. Otherkin is off the wall enough and broad enough to validate many psychological disorders. It doesn't mean that the belief should entirely be cast off, though. I think that this site should give a synopsis of what Otherkin are. There's lots of information available, it's simply a matter of referencing it. If you made a subheading on the article, "What do Otherkin believe?" you could easily reference A Field Guide to Otherkin. And that's what it needs.

Outside of their own subculture, otherkin beliefs are often met with controversy. isn't that weasel words? is there *anyone* outside their subject who doesn't think they are mad or deluded? where's the controversy? --Fredrick day 09:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You assert that otherkin is a spiritual belief, not a mental disorder. I think an important question to answer is whether there is a difference; it'd be very easy to classify illogical, deeply-held religious beliefs as mental disorders. As they say, if you speak to God, its called prayer. If God speaks to you, its called schitzophrenia. More seriously, there's no reason to believe that spiritual beliefs and mental disorders are distinctive. If something which is a religious belief is classified as a mental disorder, then it is our responsiblity to say that. There are good NPOV sources that say as much, and if you don't trust scientists, then who can you trust? Just because it is classified as a mental disorder doesn't mean it is bad and, in any case, it is irrelevant; what matters is verifiability, and if we can verify that this connection is held strongly enough that it makes its way into a peer-reviewed scientific journal, then you're just out of luck. You might be able to find a RS disputing it (I seriously doubt it). The Wooster link is, unfortunately, no longer extant. Otherkin were in the 2005 version of the curriculum, and the 2006 curriculum omitted them. I'm going to email the professor to see what they have to say and if they can give us any information. As for why they're reliable; they have a Ph.D. and their course is considered acceptable to be taught at Wooster, which is a real accredited university. Its not wonderful, but its good enough. Lupa does not have a Ph.D. in a related field. I've already listed three potential RSs, so maybe you should take a look at how they're different. The strongest of those is the Werewolves one. The Wooster site is not banned by the OR guidelines because WE didn't do the OR. A Wikipedian cannot do original research then put it into a page. However, we can use reliable sources who do original research (all knowledge stems from this, in the end), assuming they're reliable, competant, relevant, ect. There's no evidence to suggest Lupa is any of these, and as good as the book might be (and judging by the writing style, I'm going to say not very) unless Lupa is an authority in the field (she asserts the opposite) or notable in the group (most otherkin don't know who she is), then its a lot sketchier. It doesn't help that she's published by a group who seem to publish a lot of sketchy works we'd not be able to use, and there's nothing distinguishing Lupa's book. The problem is that you're arguing emotionally, not with any sort of backup. Its best to cite WHY a source is an RS according to Wikipedia guidelines. I'm asserting they're not, and I want you to prove me wrong. If you can't argue with me from the basis of Wikipedia guidelines, then you aren't going to convince me, as Wikipedia has these guidelines for a reason. I hate having to delete huge sections of OR or of things that aren't acceptably referenced, but I will if I have to. I have serious concerns about using A Field Guide to Otherkin as a source, and I need for you to answer those concerns. You have not addressed them at all. You have to understand how Wikipedia works; the people working on this article aren't biased against otherkin, but they don't want to see original research or badly sourced stuff making its way into the article. We had to chop down the article considerably to make it meet the standards of Wikipedia, and I'd like it to be a good article, as would the others. But until you can show us a good RS, we're at an impasse. You can't add stuff without an RS, and your assertions that A Field Guide to Otherkin is an RS is groundless as far as I can tell, as I've shown several points against it from WP:RS. Counter them, or find another RS. If I get down to the public library this week, I'll see if they have that Werewolves book. Your accusations of bias on our part is funny. I have many otherkin friends, and I want a good otherkin article. But this is Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon 11:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First, I want to thank you for honestly responding with points, rather than simply blowing me off as not knowing what I'm talking about. I really do appreciate it. :)

I do understand your points, however they bring a question to mind. I thought I knew what the goal was for the article, and now I'm not so sure. What exactly is the article looking for?

I went and read the article "Christianity." I figure it's a fantastic reference since it's a well known faith, very well sourced (several dozen references), with a long history. In many respects, it can be considered the "ideal" in what religion/faith articles should be. Obviously, it's substantially better than Otherkin as an article, for it's long history and vast sources.

If you read that article, you will notice some things. For instance, "Christians believe" and various variations of that are said throughout the article. A substantial portion of this exceedingly long article shows the details of what Christians believe. Another thing you may notice is the chart and sections breaking down Christianity into the seperate types, and briefly illustrating the details of those types. It also shows the history of the terminology and the faith itself. It uses many references, two of which including the bible, and a website made by a baptist convention http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#ii. This website is extremely opinionated and doesn't even slightly admit the possibility that it may be wrong, or that Christians are all lunatics. Yet, it is accepted as valid, and quite honestly, I agree. It's an excellent resource made by Christians for Christians illustrating what they believe.

Following the presumption that we seek the ideal, ultimately, for Otherkin, one must inevitably come to the following conclusions. Ideally, the article will include details on exactly what otherkin believe, how those beliefs differ, categories detailing the different types of otherkin, the history of the word Otherkin (already there) and of the belief itself. And it seems including information on similarities between otherkin and similar belief systems would be well placed, as well.

Sadly, documented information on most of this information is not available. However, we do have a book that quite adequately covers the beliefs of otherkin and the types. This book is cited from several sources, including a considerable bibliography, uses a substantial amount of information acquired from surveys, is published by an actual publisher, so isn't self published. It's from a neutral point of view, easily seen by the fact that the author includes arguments both for and against Otherkin, and also by the fact that she holds to the facts reported from the survey as opposed to personal opinion. She clarifies what her personal opinion is, in the further attempt to be neutral, trying to make sure the reader is prepared to catch any bias that might have slipped through her editing. The facts she has chosen to focus on are more qualitative, in that she prefers to analyze the life and nature of Otherkin and their beliefs, as opposed to a focus on statistics. This book is written specifically about Otherkin, so contains a considerable amount of information on this phenomenon, not clouded by information on other topics. It seems to be a fantastic resource for illustrating the beliefs and types of Otherkin. This book is called A Field Guide to Otherkin, by Lupa. Considering the book is sourced and cited, based on research and surveys not opinion, it seems to be an excellent resource for use in this page. Substantially more valid than that convention website the Christian article uses, it seems.

I can understand that her peculiar writing style and unusual beliefs might throw someone off; however, it doesn't change the fact that the content, if honestly evaluated, is entirely valid.

Ultimately, I feel I should boil down this post to the following 3 questions: #1. What exactly is the Otherkin article looking for, as far as content, if my suppositions are false? #2. What exactly is the Otherkin article looking for, as far as sources, if a publisher published, neutral, cited, research-based book specifically detailing the topic isn't it? #3. What exactly constitutes valid sources? The wikipedia rules are somewhat vague on the matter, leaving it up to the interpretation of the editors with such statements along the lines of, "X really shouldn't be used much, but it could be used if deemed appropriate."

I'm really having extreme difficulty with the admittedly biased, personal opinions of a teacher being more valid than the book. His opinions aren't the course material, they're used as a subject for discussion. Or the obviously biased opinions of the owners of the Baptist convention with powerful statements assuming they are perfectly correct, and every other opinion is wrong, while the A Field Guide to Otherkin, in it's attempt to be neutral, even admits the possibility that Otherkin might all be insane. Lupa is bizarre, undeniably, but she's intensely focused on neutrality and accurate information.

Ruby 14:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A further note, I just received her book in the mail, so I finally have more than the first 30 pages of her works to go on. The strange writing style is limited only to the introduction, once she settles into her pace, it's actually very well written. The book is 310 pages long with probably size 8 font (rather tiny), and is extremely concise in it's presentation of the information. There's a mind-boggling amount of information in here. It'll take a while to sort through. But this book is most certainly valid for purposes of this article. It's very neutral, very fact-focused, almost entirely composed of analyzing survey and research results. She's not saying whether she agrees or disagrees with the results at all. She's simply presenting them. What this article needs isn't a statistical report, it needs an explanation (an article) on what otherkin are. That is what her surveys and research were focused on. Lupa is presenting this data (to even describe the types of data she presents would take a few pages) in a scientific, structured, analytical way. Her book is very professional. If you wish to contest this response, then I suggest you purchase the book, as I did, read it through, and then present your case.

If you contest my ability to judge, consider this: I may not have graduated yet, but I've got 2 years under my belt, working on a degree in nursing and a PhD in psychology, with the intent of becoming a nurse practitioner specializing in psychology. I have taken several writing classes, math classes, and science classes, so I'm very well versed in what constitutes professional and academic writing. I'm entitled to my belief systems, and they do not make me incapable of sound judgement. There are plenty of Christians, for instance, with PhDs, and their research findings are not inherently discounted due to their faith. The fact I am Otherkin myself most certainly does not mean I'm incapable of sound reasoning when evaluating a work. Some otherkin articles/pages make me cringe in how poorly they're done; this work is well crafted.

Ruby 14:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You're not disputing my point. My point is that Lupa is not a recognized authority in this or any field, and the company she was published by is not exactly known as a reliable source of information (anyone who publishes serious books on alchemy generally isn't). The guy who heads the Baptist convention IS recognized as an authority by a large number of Baptists. Obviously any such article is going to talk about beliefs, and that's what he's used for. And claiming Lupa is neutral is silly; she's otherkin herself and says she is writing from that point of view and says as much in her introduction. If she was recognized as an authority among the otherkin community then she'd be a fine source, but she isn't. Titanium Dragon 12:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1. What constitutes a "large number" of Otherkin recognizing her as an authority? Considering the small number of otherkin in general, it wouldn't take many. There are a number of Otherkin who consider her an expert on the field. No, she's not the end-all be-all of Otherkin, but then, any scientific researcher would be shot (not quite literally) for making such a claim. A scientific journal simply presents the results of research. That's what she's presenting. And at that, the wooster.edu site is a teacher, but that teacher has virtually no knowledge of Otherkin, yet his words are accepted? And Lupa is fairly recognized in the Pagan community for her knowledge, Otherkin being an aspect of that... if you visit her website at www.thegreenwolf.com you'll see that she teaches on various pagan subjects, charges for them, runs a stand selling related things, and has written several books on these topics. She's very well educated: there's no such thing as an "Otherkin PhD" but she is very well educated in pagan subjects, which is as relevant as it gets.
2. Where exactly in wikipedia's rules does it say that a number of people, or what number of people, have to believe a certain person is a person of authority before their words can be accepted?
3. How do you know she's not an authority within the Otherkin community? How many Baptists would recognize the name presented in that website? Most likely, only those going to those conventions, and only Some highly educated people in that arena. A large number of Otherkin who are highly educated in such areas do recognize her as an authority. She's occasionally referred to in different websites as a "pagan scholar." Otherkin is a pagan belief, so it is relevant.
4. Why is a publisher that publishes a book on alchemy considered less than reputable? It's a pagan belief, Otherkin is a pagan belief system, and the publisher has written a number of pagan-related books. Ok, so You all might not believe in alchemy, but it doesn't mean that those who do are inherently wrong, or following that thought, that a publisher who publishes books relating to such things is inherently irreputable. Not all publishers are willing to publish on such topics, because of individuals like you who'd think them irreputable, but it's not reasonable to attack the few that are willing to do so.
5. I DID address your point in this fact: regardless of whether or not Lupa is an expert in the field (and the wooster teacher certainly is not!) what she presented was the Results of her Surveys and Research. She has Published findings on her results. Whereas the teacher's works are Not published, they're personal opinions presented for discussion.

I have never heard of her, no otherkin I have asked has ever heard of her, not even the pagan ones. Given that is all I have to go on... Now, I haven't asked them all yet, but I suspect the answers will be much the same. It seems rather likely she is someone who is popular in some small clique of otherkin rather than someone who is recognized as an authority (not that anyone really is recognized as an authority by otherkin, which is part of the problem). Additionally, you're putting a lot of weight in non-scientific surveys that she apparently ran, most likely in her own little community (I never saw hide nor hair of them, nor heard of them, before now). All of this points to a random person (who as much as admits that she isn't an authority on the subject in the introduction of her book) who wrote a book on a topic.

Second, it says that we need reliable sources. Reliable sources have particular rules. Please read the reliable sources page. You're asking questions which are answered ON THAT PAGE, either because you haven't read it or because you don't want to admit that she doesn't live up to these standards.

Third, I would suspect most Baptists wouldn't recognize that name, but would recognize the organization; additionally, he's a member of the church hierarchy in some manner. Given that otherkin don't have any real or widely recognized hierarchy, any large organizations, and her lack of name recognition, this seems like a rather futile path to go down.

Fourth, alchemy was the predecessor to modern chemistry; alchemy is no longer a relevant system and anyone who talks about alchemy nowadays is a crank. It is possible to turn lead into gold via nuclear physics, but you can't do it at room temperature with alchemy as alchemists sought after for millenia. It isn't a pagan belief so much as it is an obsolete and discredited system. Modern day alchemists are uniformly cranks, and a group that publishes crank works doesn't seem likely to be a reputable publisher, particularly when their selection of books seems to be composed of such works.

And fifth, if she isn't a reliable source then we can't include anything. Non-scientific surveys are worth very little, and she does not appear to be an expert in data collection. She appears to be and essentially SAYS she is a random person who wrote a book about otherkin. When a book explicitly says things which imply we could not use it as an RS for Wikipedia, then it seems likely we won't be able to use it as an RS for Wikipedia save on itself, and neither the book nor Lupa are notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles.

Read WP:RS, understand it, then argue from there. Titanium Dragon 08:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, my bias: I am a neither an alchemist nor Otherkin, but I am an Otherkin-friendly pagan. Alchemy is also an aspect of a religious belief, specifically or rather especially in Hermetic magic. Many books on far sillier subjects are published by far more reputable publishers (e.g. Llewellyn). Simply because you believe that all modern alchemists are cranks, whether or not they are, does not invalidate a publisher that happens to publish a book on alchemy from being able to publish a reliable source on another subject. I personally think that Scientology is a crock of excrement, but if a publisher were to publish both a book on Scientology and a history of the War of 1812, I would still consider the War of 1812 book valid unless I found direct refutation from another book. However, I grant that A Field Guide to Otherkin may not meet RS requirements. I will read over my copy's bibliography. If she uses sufficient information from books that would in turn be considered RS's, would A Field Guide to Otherkin be considered a RS? Jorgath 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

tags

Is there any particular reason that Otherkin is tagged with the College of Wooster? If no one objects, I will get rid of the tag, because there is no obvious connection that I can see. Aegyptus 16:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mental illness?

Should we mention the fact that considering oneself an Otherkin is classed as a delusion? A delusion, of course, is a belief held without proof, and since I've yet to see an Otherkin prove they are an Angel, Anthromorphic rainbow wolf or reincarnated table I'm going to have to hazard a guess that they're a bit doolally. --79.65.31.125 13:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's rather iffy. Most people will automatically be able to deduce that something's "not quite right" but to inject that they are mentally ill without a reliable source making the claim first is an unsourced injection of your own opinion or "take" on the subject. There are alot of differing opinions about Otherkin from mental illness, self delusion, escapism, simple gullibility, a differing form of neo-shamanism, legit religious belief or transmigration of souls, reincarnation, etc. While we can link to similar topics such as clinical lycanthropy in a "see also section" because it is an obviously related topic we can't say that any Otherkin "suffer" from the condition as there are no reliable sources that say as much. Also consider that a delusion, defined as a belief held without any proof or inspite of contrary evidence, pretty much sums up most supernatural or religious belief to label Otherkin as such without those pesky sources is to open a huge can of worms. NeoFreak 15:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think, personally, that we've been bending over backwards so far so long to give these people an even shake that we are missing the obvious. You say there needs to be a reliable source that says they are mentally ill when clinical lycanthropy is already described as a mental illness and the traits of "otherkin" (at least when really believed and not just some silly roleplaying game, like many of them are) fit that description. So just because most experts haven't bothered to come out and make a comment on these self-identified names doesn't mean they haven;t already talked about it. And, so, what, if the APA comes out tomorrow and says "Otherkin" and "Therians" and etc. are all mentally ill, and then the same people decide to call themselves Beastlies instead, can we not say Beastlies meet the definitions of mentally ill because no psychiatrist said anything about no "Beastlies"? It's just going around in circles, and one these people are playing, especially when they go and try to change the definition of clinical lycanthropy to claim it doesn't cover them ("It only covers people who think they physically change, and none of us believe we do (hush up Mark, you can tell your little "saw fur on your arms" anecdote later, you too Jonni), so that obviously doesn;t apply to us." "Um, no, noting about that diagnoses says physically changing only." :Changes article: "Yes it does, go look, stop the hate!").

And, yes, psychiatrists cannot group diagnose people, it has to be one by one, so psychiatrists are ever likely to come out and say all Otherkin and Therian are nuts, even if the people who fit the definitions of those terms (and again aren't just playing) would be diagnosed individually. So you demand the experts to come out and do something they would never do and then try to present it as if it hold special meaning.

I agree whole heartedly with the NPOV policy, and just because I have opinions doesn't mean I won't uphold NPOV, but there's only so far NPOV even holds, and trying to validate beliefs for people is not our jobs. DreamGuy 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand your concern that semantics and the idea of NPOV translating into the kids gloves treatment of the obvious in order not to offend is getting in the way of realistic and accurate coverage of Otherkin. I don't really view this as NPOV issue as much as a verifiability issue. The reason I wouldn't advocate making what would seem a a simple deduction is the same reason why the Otherkin article is so brief to begin with: they are an underground and unrecognized movement (or whatever you want to call them). We cannot deduce from the available reliable sources what any significant number of them really believe or even if any significant number believe the same thing at all. You could say that some Otherkin might or probably fall under the definition of clinical lycanthropy or any one of a dozen different mental or social disorders but not only is that a very weak statment but it also violates WP:SYN. We simply don't have the level of nessicary verifiability to make any such connection in any definite manner. NeoFreak 15:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I 'm of a like mind with NeoFreak. According to the clinical lycanthropy page, it's "a delusion that the affected person can or has transformed into an animal, or that he or she is in some way an animal." From what I know about otherkin, they don't think they are animals or can transform into animals. Instead, they feel some kind of connection with mythical non-human beings, as if they were one of them in a past life. On the surface, the two things (otherkin and clinical lycanthropy) look like similar things with mere semantic differences, but when you look at the definitions and descriptions, they're quite different. I'm not saying otherkin don't suffer from a possible mental illness, but I don't think that illness is clinical lycanthropy. --clpo13_(talk) 07:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I second NeoFreak's statements on the basis of WP:SYN. As much as the connection may seem obvious to some, it seems to be the sort of statement which requires a qualified source. Otherwise, whether or not it's true, it's essentially original research. We're not supposed to be interpreting the information, just presenting it, if I understand policy correctly. --Scandalous 13:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that doing such would be a 'bad' idea, for a number of reasons, one of which being that most other pages would also have to be classified as 'mental illness' as well, and the last thing we need is a bunch of angry christian conservatives attacking the concept of wikipedia at every turn. you can't prove that any number of beliefs central to religions. The only difference between Christianity, and Otherkin is the age of the religion. And marking all of them as delusions would be breaking of Wikipedia policy. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out yet again that "Otherkin" is not a religion, it is a single simple belief. ---- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 09:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is, nevertheless, a supernatural belief in something that cannot be scientifically proven, thus the only different between Otherkin and christians is that Christians are organized as group. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 07:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to note that the definition of "delusion" in the DSM-IV includes an exception for a religious or spiritual belief so long as that belief does not cause harm to the believer or anyone around them. Jorgath 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote, homosexuality was considered a mental illness until the 70's. [1] If you're going to act as if the APA has 20/20 foresight, then are you backing them up on their previous claims as well? Popular belief ≠ fact.

YourLocalMyobu 07:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality, or the concept of being attracted to members of the same gender, wouldn't have been considered a delusion anyway. Claiming to be a dragon is a little more far-fetched than claiming to like your own sex. --SquidMoose 09:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That is rather irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources say. -I- think the comparison to clinical lycanthropy is more than fair. Titanium Dragon 08:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But aren't the two rather different? I don't think Otherkin has anything to do with physically changing (or believing you can physically change) into any animal, which is what clinical lycanthropy is all about. Otherkin is about having some kind of connection with creatures (generally mythical), not changing into them. --clpo13_(talk) 08:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Werewolves, God, dragons, Jesus coming back from the dead - all supernatural claims with absolutely no objective evidence supporting them. Only difference is that more people are Christian, so they see it as "normal"; while it's easy for people to stand in judgment of smaller, more obscure belief systems while neglecting to question their own. The APA would never classify either of them as mental illness because they have to allow for cultural sensitivity, freedom of thought and religion, etc. If for some reason they ever stopped that policy, that is if they really started classifying belief in mythical things as a "mental illness" or a "delusion", then all religions great and small would immediately, logically fall under that definition. Though they would not do that because they are concerned with A.) the individual, not the group, and B.) behaviors that can be demonstrated as harmful. They don't care if you believe in Jesus or the tooth fairy, as long as that belief doesn't interfere with your well-being or that of the people in your life.VatoFirme (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the "mentally ill" bit. There's no evidence linking Otherkin to any form of mental illness, and it definitely does not match NPOV. KiTA (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Laura Wade and Radio Drama

She has an entry in Wikipedia. Apparently she's a semi-notable modern playwright. This radio drama that 86.132.158.239 tried to add may or may not be notable. I propose that we look into adding it after it airs if it gives any useful information, although possibly just as a reference. Jorgath 15:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Before it gets added the notability should be demonstrated n the talk page, because right now there's nothing to differentiate from tons of other spam and trivia various people want to add all over. Radio dramas tend to be quite nonnotable these days to begin with, so unless this gets some major publicity or something I can't imagine any situation where mentioning it here makes any sense. So far it's just a title that overlaps this article title. DreamGuy 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The drama doesn't really bear mentioning in this page, but it could do with a disambig page mentioning the play and pointing to this article, especially if the play gets its own page later on. --clpo13_(talk) 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of what the plot is suppose to be about, it is directly related to Otherkin, and, by the sounds of it, some of the issues they have to face in their beliefs, which, ironically, are somewhat discussed in the above sections.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Then any mention of it here should talk about how it's directly related to the topic, other than the name. Of course, that still leaves the notability of it, which needs to be established first and foremost. --clpo13_(talk) 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that requires us to obtain a link to the script/transcript. I'm not in a position to do so. Is anyone else? Jorgath 01:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in debating "worth" or notability right now because I also don't see a reliable source that provides any measure of verifiability. Does anyone know where we can source this information to? NeoFreak 12:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/radio/wk35/thu.shtml -

Afternoon Play – Looking For Angels: Otherkin

Thursday 30 August
2.15-3.00pm BBC RADIO 4

Otherkin, by Laura Wade, is a dark and delicate comedy about identity and beliefs and what happens when these are challenged.

Otherkin are people who believe that they're not entirely human – that they are, or once were, something "other".

This play tells the story of Ash, an angel whose phantom wings require her to rip holes in the back of every jumper she owns. Her human body looks quite ordinary but her true form is more beautiful than anything dreamed up by fantasy writers. She remembers her past life quite clearly and goes online to share it with like-minded people. Online she meets Neil, a dragon who needs help to unlock his memories. They make a connection which absolves them from dealing with the real world, but, when one of them contrives a face-to-face meeting, they are forced into questioning each other, which leads them to confront why they want to escape.

An excellent cast is headed by Liz White (Life On Mars) and Sam West. Other cast members include Paul Copley, Susan Jameson, Samantha Spiro, Emily Wachter and Simon Treves.

Otherkin is part of a short BBC Radio 4 season of plays, Looking For Angels.

Producer/Steven Canny

--Thespian 14:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks interesting. And I didn't spot any incorrect information in the blurb. Nonetheless, it doesn't meet RS standards, and so I propose we relegate it to a reference or an "Otherkin in the Media" section if we can justify creating that. Jorgath 16:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Stub status, reliable soruces

Looks like we may have another dispute brewing. Two issues:

• Is this article a "stub"?
• Is Polson, Willow (2003). The Veil's Edge: Exploring the Boundaries of Magic. Citadel Press. p. 93. ISBN 0-8065-2352-2. a "reliable source"?

Wikipedia:Stub describes a stub as being "an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information." This article currently has a grand total of five sentences and IMO provides only rudimentary information on the subject, calling it a stub seems reasonable to me. Personally I don't care about stub templates one way or the other but since this is being used as the basis for arguing whether the article needs expansion it's actually somewhat significant.

Reliable source guidelines are rather more complex, but here again I'm not sure how this book doesn't apply. Citadel Press doesn't appear to be a vanity publisher, as far as I can tell; a quick googling didn't find their homepage but found several sites listing other books published by them; [2], [3]. They seem like a reasonable collection of titles. Could you be more specific about how this book probably isn't a reliable source, DreamGuy? Bryan Derksen 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it provide sufficient information to qualify as a full source, or are we going to have to relegate it to secondary source status? Jorgath 19:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a fairly extensive conversation and explanation about the source in the later part of the "Proposed solution" subsection of "Request for Mediation: Verifiability". Most of the material that the Field Guide's publisher puts out is garbage. Just because someone can market and sell something doesn't mean it's a reliable source. I still haven't bought the book myself so I can't speak from experiance about its contents. NeoFreak 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This proposal does not refer to the Field Guide, but rather a different book. Citadel Press may be a reliable publisher. And I reject your assertion that just because you happen to believe that nothing Immanion Press prints books on exists, none of their books can be reliable sources. Jorgath 02:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone actually READ it? I have never seen a copy of it.

As for the probelm with the source - the problem is that it is a book on magic, rather than any sort of real look at the subculture. There's no accountability and it is unclear how good of a source it is in general. Titanium Dragon 07:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to all this, but I've been working on a new article, together with some other people, without knowing about this discussion. (As I said, I don't have any experience with Wikipedia editing.) Would you like to see the draft we made? Yes, obviously, reliable sources are a problem, but for a phenomenon as young as this one, it's really hard to find those. Kahoku 20:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So as not to clog this page with a rewrite draft you can post it in my user subspace/sandbox. Follow this link, paste the article in and hit "save page". There is a discussion page for it just like here, it will make things easier. You could also create it in your own subspace, if you like that idea hit me up and I'll build you one or show you how to do so yourself. Or you can just go ahead and post it here under a new subject header. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoFreak (talk • contribs) 05:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted the article in your sandbox, thank you! And yes, having my own sandbox sounds good too. Kahoku 10:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Otherkin and Furries

I think it's inappropriate to link the article Otherkin to the one about furries, unless it is mentioned somewhere that furries consider themselves as animal or anthro Otherkin. I am a Dragonkin, and I do not consider myself a furry, as being a dragon does not make me either an animal or an anthro. Dragons are not animals; they're mythical monsters. Xlittlecloudx 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be overlap, so the link is probably warranted. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an overlap, but maybe only in the direction of furries---> otherkin, where some Furries see themselves as otherkin, but not all otherkin are furries. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

They are related phenomena; many furries are otherkin, many otherkin are furries, and both groups have members who first join the one then the other. I've seen many furries decide they're otherkin, and many otherkin become involved in the furry fandom. Titanium Dragon 06:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Many people are also involved in both the anime fandom and the hacker subculture. That doesn't make the two things the same. 63.118.45.4 14:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but significantly fewer will say that they are a hacker, because they're into anime, or vice versa. On the other hand, some furries believe that their "fursona" is a reflection of their otherkin nature. That *is* a relation. That said, my sitting in at some furry/otherkin workshop and hearing people's anecdotes on the topic counts as original research at best. --Scandalous 22:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Most otherkin communities don't count Furries as Otherkin. There is an explanation to that in the draft I submitted. Kahoku 10:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Article submission

As I said, I've been working on a new article with the help of some other people, when I didn't know about this discussion yet. You can find it at [[4]], please let me know what you think about it. Thank you! (And thanks to NeoFreak for letting me use his sandbox!) Kahoku 10:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article itself is good and accurate and NPOV, but I'm worried about some of those references. otherkin.net is not what I would consider a Reliable Source under WP:RS. Jorgath 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The problem is that, for spiritual topics, there are no reliable sources, it's all more or less biased. But it seems that otherkin.net is one of the more accepted pages within the community. i can also find the same information on other sites, like Otherkin Alliance, but I don't think that everyone would respect the views of one community, even though it's a very big one. Any ideas? Should I scratch ok.net? Kahoku 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with otherkin.net is not inherently its reliability, but the other aspect of WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." No website meets that criteria, no matter how accurate or reliable it is. A little over half your article's references are web-based. This is my guesstimate, but probably no more than a third of the references should be web-based for now. If you could cut that back... Jorgath 04:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not that it is a website (websites can, in fact, be RSs) but that it isn't an RS. Otherkin.net is the webpage of a random individual, and there's no coverage of it, they have no credentials, nothing. That's the problem; it isn't notable and it isn't an RS.

Indeed, that is the major problem with this article: the topic may well NOT be notable, on the basis of lack of RSs. Titanium Dragon 08:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Jorgath, I will work on that.

Titanium Dragon, I've seen a lot of discussions as to whether this article should be covered by Wikipedia or not. However, I've also seen this article for at least 2 years now, it was there but had no information in it at all. That's why I decided to do something. If, in the end, people decide to put it off Wikipedia, that's fine (although I may protest), but in my humble opinion, it just can't stay the way it is. Kahoku 10:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's...semi-notable. There are sources, it's just that none of the ones I know of qualify to be more than secondary sources, and we need at least one primary source that meets RS. What we really need is a sociologist or an anthropologist to write a book on the Otherkin community. Jorgath 13:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Does it have to be a book? I mean, if I find someone of that kind and get them to write an article, would that be enough? Kahoku 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So long as their credentials are sufficient (preferably a master's degree if not a doctorate in religion, sociology, or anthropology), I don't see that that would be a problem. That may take a while, though. Did you have someone in mind? Jorgath 04:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I know some people who may know someone... let me see what I can do. Kahoku 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Jorgath is incorrect; it has to be a seperate source. We cannot have original research on Wikipedia; it has to be sourced externally. Having a masters or phd does not change this. Titanium Dragon 03:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant having them write an actual non WP-article, which we could then use as a source. If Kahoku meant having them write the Wikipedia article, then I know and agree that we cannot permit that. Jorgath 04:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I was talking about a non-Wikipedia article. Kahoku 12:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a definite answer, but I may have someone who has a degree in theology. If it doesn't go well, would a psychologist's article work as well? Kahoku 11:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

<reset> This is a very dangerous area to get into. Pimping a friend or a associate with an academic or professional certification to write something you want in order to "cite" that requested stament is totally against the entire point of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The entire of idea of wikipedia is that it is a tertiary source. We, as editors, do not generate or synthesize information. The only real exception to this is the subject of a biographic article making simple, corrective and uncontroversial changes to his or her article. We simply collect the information is already published in reliable sources and then assemble them into factual, neutral and readable encyclopedic articles.

Just having a relavent certification in a field does not entitle a person to edit an article at will. This person's opinion has to already be published in a reliable publication. I recommend reading the policy on original research in its entierty with special attention to the section on citing one's self, the guidline on verifiability with attention to the section on self published sources and finally the guidline on conflicts of interest. NeoFreak 05:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* You're right, of course. I'm just moderately desperate to get a source for this article. I think I need to step back on the sourcing discussion for this article for a little while to get my head back in the right place where it's concerned. Jorgath 08:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you got me wrong, NeoFreak. I'm not telling that person what to write, and it wouldn't be published here. What I'm trying to do is simply encouraging someone to deal with the matter. They might be disapproving - all I'm trying to do is have the term of "Otherkin" mentioned in a professional context. This would be a professional journal or something like that, not Wikipedia.

Do you have any better ideas as to what we should do? Just waiting until, by chance, some professional discovers this topic? It's a vicious circle. Nobody will notice/understand the subject if the article here looks like it does now, and because of that, nobody will discover it as a research topic, so we can't post the article for a lack of sources... this just doesn't sound right. Kahoku 08:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont' think there's anything wrong with it, per se, and in any event it isn't as if the topic is likely to get attention unless it is brought to someone's attention, eh? Titanium Dragon 21:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is something very wrong with it as I've laid out above. Besides, getting a topic attention by producing original research or other material so you can advertise it on wikipedia is not okay either. Wikipedia is not for soapboxing, advertising or championing pet subjects. Check out WP:NOT or WP:ENC for why this train of thought is counter productive for the encyclopedia. I'll check out the CYD link you provided below when I'm not at work. NeoFreak 11:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that furries that consider themselves as Otherkin are actually Therians, as Therians think that they are animals, and Otherkin think that they are monsters/mythical beings. Xlittlecloudx 21:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Many Therians consider themselves a subset of Otherkin, much like many Vampires do. Jorgath 23:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The popular definition of otherkin is: non-human soul in human body. Thus, therians (animal soul in human body) are otherkin. Kahoku 13:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential Source

CYD has brought to my attention a radio thinger I haven't listened to. Has anyone listened to it? Could it be a viable source? Titanium Dragon 09:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it the one mentioned a few subsections up the talk page? If it is, I think we decided it was a reference in the media, but that it was not RS. Jorgath 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page readability:

This is probably a little silly, admittedly. However, I'm noticing quite a few debates repeating themselves all over these pages, with little in the way of resolution. I can't help but wonder if this isn't exacerbated by the fact that the talk page is becoming a bit disorganized and cumbersome. At least it is to me. I've done searches on this page to hit various arguments, and I'm finding that particular arguments are scattered throughout the various "topics" here.

For example: debates surrounding Clinical Lycanthropy can be found in the Content Proposal - Can we work together?, the Request for Mediation: Verifiability, and the Mental illness? sections.

I'm not claiming there aren't other factors involved in the constant rehashing of debates, but I can't imagine this helping.--Scandalous 13:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)